Recently in politics Category

It's been a really long time since I've written about anything purely political. But I came across this interview on CNBC with Rep. Paul Ryan, a member of Pres. Obama's debt commission.

Ryan has been talking a lot lately about how to get the country out of its current debt crisis.

His upshot: "We got to get the entrepreneurial economy started again."

"We're replacing basic free enterprise with crony capitalism, where you have big business using their largesse and their connections with big government to stack the deck in their favor," Ryan says. "To have the rules set for the incumbents in business, which are to erect barriers to entry against other would-be competitors that would knock them off the top of the hill. So I'm really worried that many of us are confusing being pro-market with being pro-business. We need to have a free enterprise system where everybody has access to capital markets."

That's a key distinction. The reputation of conservative elected officials is that they are pro-business. Certainly some of them are. But what Ryan demonstrates is that sound fiscal responsibility consists in being pro-market -- i.e., in favoring equal opportunity. That means cutting back on subsidies, cutting back on throwing dollars at certain individual companies or sectors, and simply allowing the market -- which is composed of individual entrepreneurs, inventors, and producers -- to do what it does best.

This doesn't mean producers in the market will not be held to account if they behave criminally. Laws are in place for a reason and they should be enforced. But what we have gotten away from in America is a sense of independence. The idea that the key to prosperity and happiness is freedom and liberty to prosper oneself and one's family. If the nation is to climb out of its current debt situation and the current recession, it will be individuals, families, and local communities -- the private sector, not the public sector -- that do it.

Here's Ryan's conversation on CNBC.

***
The discussion reminds me of something my best man Brandon Kraft wrote in his (and formerly also my) blog Catholic Thinker about the difference between working for good and working for greed. The illustration he cites is Gordon Gekko from the 1987 film Wall Street. Certainly that is a good, albeit fictional, illustration of the vice and certainly it is an accurate portrayal of some on Wall Street.

I would add that greed is not just in the private sector. It is everywhere. No government can spend itself into trillions of dollars in debt without being greedy. And it is my opinion that most private consumers are smart and know greed when they see it (more so than the government, I'd wager). Greed doesn't pay in a marketplace populated by consumers with a moral compass.

So again, the point is that to be a supporter of a free and unencumbered market is not the same as siding with unethical Wall Street hacks and big business. Often, as Ryan makes plain, it is the very collusion of such types with the government that make it difficult for up-and-comers to prosper themselves and build a good life for themselves and their families. A free market, as distinguished from crony capitalism, is crucial to addressing what may become the growing problem of poverty in the United States.

Pat Archbold at the National Catholic Register writes about about how the media is "very confused" about how to react to the appointment of Archbishop Jose Gomez to the Los Angeles Archdiocese. It's actually pretty funny.

The media is alternately ecstatic and apoplectic over Pope Benedict's choice for the city of Angels. Several news outlets, notably the LA Times, have already written several articles about what to expect from Archbishop Gomez and have even tried to send thinly-veiled warnings. But in most of the coverage, the media makes the same mistake that it always makes when it tries to cover religion like politics. They attempt to view all matters through the lens of politics and feel compelled to attempt to classify everything in terms of the modern political definitions of 'progressive' or 'conservative.'

Trying to do this with Archbishop Gomez has left their collective heads spinning.

Archbishop Gomez is a Mexican-born hispanic. Hooray!

Archbishop Gomez is a full member of Opus Dei. Gasp!?!

Archbishop Gomez is a staunch defender of immigrants. Hooray, he is a progressive!

Archbishop Gomez is a staunch defender of life. (He even denounced a Catholic university when it invited Hillary Clinton.) Horror, he is a conservative!

Archbishop Gomez has a history of dedication to the poor. Progressive!

Archbishop Gomez is vocally opposed to homosexual marriage. Conservative!

I could go on. They are perplexed. How can a Bishop be 'orthodox'--which in the mind of the media means 'conservative' and uncaring--and still dedicated to the poor and the defenseless?

A one word answer: Catholic. What the media consistently does not get is that 'orthodoxy' in a truly Catholic sense entails love for all the teachings of Jesus, as handed down through the Church including the command to love.

Archbishop Gomez loves the Church, the poor, the homosexual, the immigrant, and the unborn all at the same time. He is Catholic.

So when the media reports on the Church, they should take off the politically-colored glasses of red and blue and remember one thing. It's the love, stupid.

One thing I have always found fascinating about Catholic bishops is that they defy and at times force us to consider what we mean when we use political terms like "conservative," "liberal," and "moderate."

An example: This week Archbishop Jose Gomez of the San Antonio Archdiocese was introduced to his new archdiocese, Los Angeles, California. It is the largest Catholic diocese in the country, heavily populated by Latinos and Mexican natives.

From the L.A. Times blog:

He invited everyone to "thank God for our diversity and to commit ourselves to things that unite us," which he explained were "our service to Jesus, the poor, the defense of the unborn child, the immigrant and the disabled."

Here we have all in one breath the enthusiastic mention of three interest groups typically (but not necessarily accurately) advocated for by the political left, the poor, the immigrant, and the disabled, and a mention of one interest group typically advocated for by the political right. Gomez's top issues do not at least at first glance easily fit into a particular political template, but I am not sure that he is necessarily a "moderate."

A "moderate," as I understand the term, means someone who straddles the fence on each issue. Gomez, and other bishops I have known and followed over the years, do not straddle the fence on much of anything. Rather, he and other Most Reverends hold strong decisive positions often associated with* Republicans on some issues, and on other issues hold strong decisive positions often associated with* Democrats.

I say "often associated with" because the religious positions do not always translate neatly into a governing policy. For example, belief in the importance of serving the poor is not the same at least conceptually as support for confiscatory tax rates and redistribution of wealth in order to do so.

Archbishop Gomez has a reputation of being "conservative" at least in a religious context because of his membership in Opus Dei, a fictional bizarro version of which was written about in the DaVinci Code. Also:

Gomez built a reputation in San Antonio as a staunch traditionalist who reversed some of the more liberal-leaning initiatives of his predecessor. According to local news reports, he disbanded a Justice and Peace Commission whose members disagreed with his support for a state constitutional amendment barring gay marriage, and he once denounced a local Catholic college for hosting then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, an advocate of abortion rights.

Since taking over the San Antonio archdiocese in 2005, Gomez has pleased some members of the community with his strong anti-abortion stance and his insistence on traditional church doctrine, while alienating others who favor a more progressive approach, according to the San Antonio Express-News.

Someday someone is going to have to explain to me how clear and effective communication of a religious teaching and tradition constitutes "alienating" somebody. His Excellency is charged with teaching and safeguarding the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as received via the Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church. Even if someone doesn't believe that, surely they can understand that Archbishop Gomez believes it, and so considers himself bound. What else is His Excllency supposed to do?

At any rate, I'll be excited to see how Archbishop Gomez adjusts to his new surroundings, and more importantly, how his new surroundings adjust to him.

From Rasmussen (emphases added):

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters say the health care reform plan now working its way through Congress will hurt the U.S. economy.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 25% think the plan will help the economy. But only seven percent (7%) say it will have no impact. Twelve percent (12%) aren't sure.

Two-out-of-three voters (66%) also believe the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats is likely to increase the federal deficit. That's up six points from late November and comparable to findings just after the contentious August congressional recess. Ten percent (10%) say the plan is more likely to reduce the deficit and 14% say it will have no impact on the deficit.

Underlying this concern is a lack of trust in the government numbers. Eighty-one percent (81%) believe it is at least somewhat likely that the health care reform plan will cost more than official estimates. That number includes 66% who say it is very likely that the official projections understate the true cost of the plan.

Just 10% have confidence in the official estimates and say the actual costs are unlikely to be higher.

Seventy-eight percent (78%) also believe it is at least somewhat likely that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class to cover the cost of health care reform. This includes 65% who say middle-class tax hikes are very likely, a six-point increase from late November.

Sen. Barack Obama promised during his 2008 presidential campaign that he would cut taxes for 95 percent of American families. But it looks like a lot of people are not buying it now. It is simply not possible to pay such enormous costs just by taxing the rich. Everyone who pays taxes will see the cost of this healthcare legislation if it passes.

Meanwhile 53 percent remain opposed to the national healthcare overhaul. The last time that number was less than 50 percent was Nov. 13-14, 2009, when it was 49, and before that the last time it was less than 50 was Sept. 12-13.

***

And the popularity of Obama's policies continues to wane, even among young people:

Harvard's Institute of Politics released the latest results from its ongoing survey of young adults this morning, and they don't look good for Democrats. As in the rest of the population, President Obama remains personally popular (56 percent approval), but support for his individual initiatives, like health-care reform, is much weaker. Only 38 percent of young people (defined as 18- to 29-year-olds) approve of the president's handling of the deficit, and a majority disapprove of his economic management (51 percent) and his work on health care (53 percent). Young people are unimpressed with congressional Democrats, with only 42 percent approving of their performance. That's still higher than for congressional Republicans--who have a mere 35 percent approval rating--but Democratic approval is down 6 points since last November, which is a worrying trend going into the midterms.

The worst sign for Democrats is voter enthusiasm. Young voters are a critical demographic for both the president and Democrats in Congress. They were the key to Obama's success last cycle, both in the primaries and the general election.

From Fox News:

First Amendment be damned . . . If Oscar-winning actor Sean Penn had his way, any journalist who called Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a dictator would quickly find himself behind bars.

Penn, appearing on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" on Friday, defended Chavez during a segment in which he detailed his work with the JP Haitian Relief Organization, which he co-founded.

"Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it" said Penn, winner of two Best Actor Academy Awards. "And this is mainstream media, who should -- truly, there should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies."

It was just the beginning of a busy weekend for Penn. When asked on CBS' "Sunday Morning" about those who question his motives for his humanitarian work in Haiti, he said:

"Do I hope that those people die screaming of rectal cancer? Yeah. You know, but I'm not going to spend a lot of energy on it."

Classy.

See the latest on the Venezuelan dicta-- er, big poopooface's human rights violations here, here, and here.

The Associated Press reports:

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's furious, final push to get a health care bill passed threatens to shove aside the message he promised would top his list this year: creating jobs.

Even as the White House juggles several enormous issues at once, the public takes its cues about the president's chief concern from how he spends his time, energy and capital. As Obama himself put it on Wednesday, from now until Congress takes a final vote on a health care overhaul, "I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform."

Everything in your power, Mr. President?

Does that mean you will not make jobs your "number one priority," like you said you would in your most recent State of the Union address, Mr. President?

Rasmussen March 4 reported a poll showing that by in large Americans want a government with fewer services and lower taxes:

Just 23% of U.S. voters say they prefer a more active government with more services and higher taxes over one with fewer services and lower taxes, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. This finding has remained fairly consistent since regular tracking on this question began in November 2006.

Two-thirds (66%) of voters prefer a government with fewer services and lower taxes. In August at the height of the congressional town hall controversy over the health care plan, 70% felt that way.

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans and 68% of voters not affiliated with either major political party favor a government with fewer services and lower taxes. Democrats are more closely divided: 38% like a more active government with more services and higher taxes, while 45% prefer one with fewer services and lower taxes.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of liberals favor a bigger, more activist government. Eighty-four percent (84%) of conservatives and 61% of moderates prefer a smaller government instead.

Rasmussen also found last week that fewer and fewer Americans believe anyone in this country can work their way out of poverty. Only 48 percent say it's possible while 35 percent say it is not and 17 percent don't know. That's down from 56 percent this time last year.

Well gee whiz, I thought the whole point of these massive government spending programs was to enable Americans to do just that -- to work their way out of property.

And it may be the point, but the American people increasingly are showing that they are not as concerned with good intentions as solid results. Charitable though the motivations behind enormous government programs and spending may be, what they accomplish is a culture of people who think they can count on themselves and their neighbors for zero, and the government for what little scraps manage to make it all the way to them from Washington, D.C.
***
And yet, the going criticism of Obama's administration is that they're failing to effectively communicate their message. David Axelrod, the White House spin maestro, is under fire as the president is, as the aforementioned polls indicate, losing the public relations battle.

I suppose it is not in the nature of progressives, or some in the press, for that matter, to ever question the merits of progressive ideas. If the American peopel do not see to be buying whatever progressive policy wonks, elected officials, advisers and spokespersons are selling, then by golly they must not be using the right phrasing!

The simpler explanation is that many people are dissatisfied with the substance of progressive ideas. Many people want approaches that will cost less in the form of taxes and government spending.

From Reuters:

President Barack Obama's budget would increase the U.S. deficit in 2011 to 2020 by $1.2 trillion more than the White House has forecast, the Congressional Budget Office said on Friday.

The CBO report fueled immediate criticism from Republicans who said Obama was raising government debt to "alarming" levels.

"Measured relative to the size of the economy, the deficit under the President's proposals would fall to about 4 percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) by 2014 but would rise steadily thereafter," the CBO said in a preliminary analysis.

What the Reuters story fails to observe, though, is that the projected deficit is expected to be $9.8 trillion. Trill-ee-yun.

Let me write it out numerically: $9,800,000,000,000. For the next ten years.

You know how you get a credit card balance every month? It could be in the thousands of dollars, but the minimum you have to pay each month is like $20 or something? Imagine that a person pays that minimum amount each month and piles on thousands in charges -- i.e. money he does not have -- every single month. Think of what that does to his financial wellbeing, and multiply that times a nation. Now multiply that by a couple of generations. That's what we're looking at. The United States of America is paying the minimum and piling up billions, even trillions, in charges every year.

So naturally the folks in Washington are looking for ways to pay for it. The first easy avenue is always to stick their hands further into the pockets of Americans.

And the Associated Press says:

The report says that extending tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under GOP President George W. Bush and continuing to update the alternative minimum tax so that it won't hit millions of middle-class taxpayers would cost $3 trillion over 2011-2020. The tax cuts expire at the end of this year and Obama wants to extend them -- except for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making $250,000.

Now let's get something straight, here. Cutting taxes doesn't cost the government anything. That would imply the government has an inherent claim to the money that it has less of as a result of the tax cuts.

It does not. The people do.

Raising taxes costs Americans. Refusing to extend the Bush tax cuts means raising taxes on Americans.

Let's assume that the folks in Washington really would update the alternative minimum tax so that it won't hit millions of middle-class taxpayers. Why is it better for that $3 trillion to be in the hands of federal bureaucrats than for it to be in the hands of business owners who are in a position to hire people who are now looking for work? This is what infuriates people about the prevailing philosophy in Washington. The philosophy is that whatever problems society faces can be "solved" in Washington. So let's all make sure Washington has the resources to fix it by patriotically ponying up more and more of our hard-earned cash.

How little faith does one have to have in private sector citizens, how cynical does one have to be about hardworking Americans to subscribe to such a vision? Does anyone really believe all that money will be spent any more frugally or wisely by government cronies who don't know how to spend money they don't even have?

Spending the country into multiple generations of enormous debt will not cost the government. It will cost the original earners of the money the government taxes and then spends like there's no tomorrow.

Reuters gleefully beams:

WASHINGTON - U.S. employers cut a smaller than expected 36,000 jobs in February, leaving the unemployment rate steady at 9.7 percent, bolstering views the labor market was on the brink of creating jobs.

The Labor Department said Friday it was unclear how the severe snowstorms, which hit much of the country last month, had impacted payrolls. Jobs losses for December and January were revised to show 35,000 fewer jobs lost than previously reported.

Did anyone in the press ask if it was at all "clear" how the continued break-neck spending in Washington has impacted the job market? The threat of new taxes on employers (excuse me, "the rich")? Sorry, it just amazes me that some in the press will sooner attribute the continued mediocrity of the economy to a snowstorm (caused by global warming, no doubt) than to the enormous regulatory uncertainty of a Washington that seems determined to spend the United States into an unfathomable level of debt.
***
Meanwhile, President Barack Obama promised 3.5 million jobs by 2010 during his presidential campaign, so the latest figures bring his jobs deficit to 8.3 million. Anybody seen those jobs? Anyone? Bueller?
***
Didn't this president and Congress say back in January, after Republican Scott Brown snatched the Massachusetts seat that had belonged to Ted Kennedy for half a lifetime, that they would focus on jobs now? The vast majority of the news I've seen lately has been on healthcare. Part of me wonders if the president can do more than talk a big game. Another part thinks if Obama gets involved in trying to create jobs it will only lead to the kinds of command-and-control policies, runaway spending, huge debt, and burdensome taxes that have the job market in its current state. No one, not even Barack Obama, can tax and spend a people into prosperity.

From ABC News March 4:

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., today said he and 11 other House members will not vote for the health care bill unless it includes more stringent language to prevent federal funding from going toward abortion services.

Some Dems want to remove public funding for abortions from Obama's proposal."We're not going to vote for this bill with that kind of language," Stupak said on "Good Morning America" today, referring to the Senate health care bill, which includes less restrictive language than what the Democratic lawmaker proposed in the House.

Stupak said he is willing to take the criticism that will be hurled at him if he blocks the bill because of the abortion language, but that he won't back down on his principles.

"I want to see health care pass. I agree... people are being priced out of the market. We must have health care but, boy, there are some principles and beliefs that some of us are not going to pass," he said. "We're prepared to take the responsibility. I mean, I've been catching it ever since last fall. Let's face it, I want to see health care. But we're not going to bypass some principles and beliefs that we feel strongly about."

The ongoing abortion debate threatens to stall the health care bill and reflects the deep divide among Democrats.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (a Catholic, by the way) is repeating a line from last year that abortion funding is not in the latest version of Obama's overhaul of the medical care system. The press at the time believed healthcare reform's pro-choice supporters but later had to backtrack and admit that abortion funding was in fact there.

It doesn't matter if abortion funding is or is not in the bill, because pro-lifers do not trust this president any farther than he can blow smoke. He could sneeze on their shirts and they wouldn't believe the boogers. They know he is a huge fan of Planned Parenthood and its mission of making "every child a wanted child," not by conforming human hearts to charitably accept the gift of life but by subjecting inconvenient children to barbaric deaths that scar their mothers for life.

Remember the Freedom of Choice Act?

I remember when everyone thought it was the Republicans with a puffed up sense of righteousness, who thought they knew right and wrong better than everybody else. Religious conservatives took hits for "legislating morality" -- using their elected status to impose a narrow moral worldview on their helpless constituents.

No more.

Now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has proclaimed that her Democratic colleagues have some kind of higher duty to pass healthcare reform, even if it means ending their careers. So has President Barack Obama.

"[T]he American people need it," she said. "Why are we here? We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress."

Very noble. Of course, Pelosi is not in the awkward position of representing constituents who think nationalized healthcare reform is a bad idea. Her constituents are definitely more likely to re-elect her because they are just as uncompromisingly liberal as she is. But let's assume she's sincere in saying that her colleagues should sacrifice their political careers. Why is that so? Because she and other Democratic leaders believe it is The Right Thing To Do. In other words, they are legislating morality.

That is one assessment of the current situation. The other assessment is that Democrats believe that the quickest way to concentrate as much power as possible in the hands of the federal government is through people's medical care. Because through that you can control every aspect of people's lives. I can't disprove that, but, perhaps naively, I prefer to assume best attentions.

That supporters of nationalized healthcare reform think it's The Right Thing To Do explains their determination to "ram it down people's throats" no matter how much the people protest it, and no matter how obvious it may be that a vote for healthcare reform will effectively destroy one's chances of getting re-elected. Would some Republicans fall on the sword to pass major abortion-curtailing legislation, Roe v. Wade notwithstanding? Sure. This healthcare reform legislation is at that level for certain Democrats. It is so fundamental and dear to their hearts that at this point consent of the governed, and even consent of colleagues, is out the window.

But the people are opposed to healthcare reform not on coldly political grounds but moral grounds also. It's a huge tax increase. Although it has been painted as a glorious government bequest unto its people, it's a government taking. It forces people to buy something even if they don't want it. And if they already have it, it forces them to pay more for it, under the pretense that what they will get is better than what they have now. It places the next generation of Americans under tremendous debt. It may not even accomplish the extension of coverage to the supposedly 30 million people it claims. It would force taxpayers to pay for medical procedures to which they have deeply moral and religious objections, like abortion.

Supporters of the medical care overhaul will say that the government must intervene because so much uncompensated care is unsustainable. Conservatives agree that such a problem exists. The question, as Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin made plain at the healthcare summit on Thursday, is whether the federal government is competent to address that problem with one-size-fits-all legislation. Conservatives believe that allowing the people to develop market-based, private sector solutions would not only work better, it would also be the right thing to do.

President George H.W. Bush made the Christian virtue known as "prudence" nerdy when he used it during his administration. But it seems our elected officials could use more of this virtue, which dictates that we cannot achieve good works solely through the righteousness of our intentions. We have to smartly channel those intentions in ways that can be effective.